biomimetics
Article
Biomimetic Urban and Architectural Design: Illustrating and
Leveraging Relationships between Ecosystem Services
Maibritt Pedersen Zari






Citation: Pedersen Zari, M.
Biomimetic Urban and Architectural
Design: Illustrating and Leveraging
Relationships between Ecosystem
Services. Biomimetics 2021, 6, 2.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
biomimetics6010002
Received: 13 October 2020
Accepted: 16 December 2020
Published: 30 December 2020
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
tral with regard to jurisdictional clai-
ms in published maps and institutio-
nal affiliations.
Copyright: © 2020 by the author. Li-
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and con-
ditions of the Creative Commons At-
tribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Biomimetics 2021, 6, 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics6010002
School of Architecture, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington 6011, New Zealand;
maibritt.pedersen@vuw.ac.nz
Abstract: Redesigning and retrofitting cities so they become complex systems that create ecological
and cultural–societal health through the provision of ecosystem services is of critical importance.
Although a handful of methodologies and frameworks for considering how to design urban envi-
ronments so that they provide ecosystem services have been proposed, their use is not widespread.
A key barrier to their development has been identified as a lack of ecological knowledge about
relationships between ecosystem services, which is then translated into the field of spatial design.
In response, this paper examines recently published data concerning synergetic and conflicting
relationships between ecosystem services from the field of ecology and then synthesises, translates,
and illustrates this information for an architectural and urban design context. The intention of the
diagrams created in this research is to enable designers and policy makers to make better decisions
about how to effectively increase the provision of various ecosystem services in urban areas without
causing unanticipated degradation in others. The results indicate that although targets of ecosystem
services can be both spatially and metrically quantifiable while working across different scales, their
effectiveness can be increased if relationships between them are considered during design phases of
project development.
Keywords: ecosystem biomimicry; urban ecology; regenerative design; green infrastructure; ecosys-
tem services relationships; ecomimicry; architecture
1. Introduction
The way cities and the buildings within them are designed will need to change
rapidly and effectively to address converging drivers of change such as climate change
and biodiversity loss, while managing human population growth, increased per capita
consumption, and urbanisation [1]. Although cities only occupy approximately 3 to 4% of
global land area [2,3], they are the sites of tremendous concentrations of energy use, water
use, materials, greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. Cities are huge drawers
and consumers of ecosystem services and producers of waste, but they are also home to
large reserves of human ingenuity, labour, economic activity, and cultural wealth. Modern
cities are primarily sites for cultural expression and the facilitation of trade, rather than for
the production of physical resources or the generation of services that produce tangible
physical health, either of ecosystems or humans [4]. Despite this, urban environments
must be considered in terms of their impact on ecosystems and their potential role in
facilitating regeneration of them. Due to the built environment’s increasing appropriation
of the goods and services of ecosystems, vital ecological services for human society (and
other species) such as climate regulation, soil formation, nutrient cycling, pollination, and
waste assimilation are negatively affected [5]. Several urban design approaches have been
recently formulated or expanded in an attempt to integrate performance-based evaluation
methods into urban design [6,7]. These methods should be explored for their relevance
to regenerative urban design paradigms. However, this paper specifically focuses on
emulating ecosystem services as a regenerative urban design strategy. This is a form of
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/biomimetics
Biomimetics 2021, 6, 2 2 of 16

urban biomimicry. Urban biomimicry, particularly related to whole-system levels, has been
less explored in design disciplines [8] but important concepts and precedents are explored
by Pedersen Zari [9], Baumeister et al. [10], Hayes et al. [11] and Taylor Buck [12].
Analysing the urban built environment from the perspective of how ecosystems
function (i.e., what they do), and then designing changes to cities so that they begin to
emulate the functions of ecosystems (a form of sustainability focused urban biomimicry [9])
could work towards the creation of cities where positive integration with, and restoration of,
local ecosystem services could be realised [9,10]. Such a framework of ecosystem services is
one way to understand the complexity of ecosystem processes and human interactions with
them [13]. If designers and policy makers are to effectively use ecosystem service models
and concepts in urban settings, they must understand how these ecosystem services are
related [14,15]. This is so potential synergies between ecosystem services can be leveraged,
but also so that potential trade-off relationships between certain ecosystem services can
be avoided or addressed [16]. To date, little research has examined relationships between
ecosystem services for an urban design context (but see: [1,16,17]). This research seeks
to address this gap in knowledge. The aim of this research is to define and illustrate key
relationships between ecosystem services (where quantitative scientific ecological research
exists), so that methodologies that aim to create or enhance urban ecosystem services
become more effective, practical, and quantifiable by adding in the ability to plan for,
anticipate, and leverage interactions between designed ecosystem services. The intention is
that the relationship diagrams presented here become useful tools for research, evaluation
of existing built environments, and the design of new developments or retrofits, particularly
those seeking to create human and ecological health rather than to simply minimise harm.
These diagrams can also form the basis of the future development of interactive design
tools [16].

1.1. The Importance of Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services are defined and listed in different ways [18–21], but typically are
divided into provisioning services such as food and medicines; regulation services such as
pollination and climate regulation; supporting services such as soil formation and fixation
of solar energy, and cultural services such as artistic inspiration and recreation. A focus
on ecosystem services has been widely adopted among ecology and policy profession-
als [21,22], and was formalised by the United Nations’ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
of ecosystems and human wellbeing [20]. In ecology literature, a distinction is often made
between ecosystem “services” and ecosystem “functions” [17]. Ecosystem functions are
“the habitat, biological or system properties or processes of ecosystems” [23] and are inde-
pendent of human defined value. Ecosystem services are the benefits that humans derive,
either directly or indirectly, from ecosystems that support human physical, psychological
and economic wellbeing, and are determined by people’s ability to use them. In this context,
ecosystem services are used as a way to understand what it is that ecosystems actually do
that is crucial to ongoing life, so that these services may be supported, integrated with, or
emulated by the built environment.
There are notable philosophical concerns with defining what ecosystems do as solely
for the benefit of humans (for example, the use of the word “services” can imply a utilitarian
perspective to ecology) [24], but for the purposes of this research, the ecosystem services
framework is a useful way for built environment designers and professionals to understand
what their buildings, designed landscapes, urban spaces, and urban infrastructure could
be designed to do in addition to more traditional design aims such as: to provide shelter,
to be energy efficient, and to have aesthetic value.
Ecosystem services are fundamental to basic human survival and human well-
being [20,24]; however, human use of ecosystem services is expanding due to human
population increases as well as significant rises in per capita rates of consumption [25]. The
global condition of most ecosystem services except for the provisioning of food and raw
materials has declined over the past sixty years [26]. Many of these ecosystem services
Biomimetics 2021, 6, 2 3 of 16

cannot be replaced with current technology [27]. While the negative impacts of the loss of
ecosystems and biodiversity (and therefore the services they provide) on people in urban
areas are difficult to quantify, there is clear evidence that the loss of urban biodiversity and
therefore urban ecosystem services have significant and interrelated negative impacts on:
• Human physical health [28–30];
• Human psychological health [31,32];
• Societal and cultural wellbeing [33,34];
• Economic health and stability [35,36].

1.2. Ecosystem Services and Urban Environments

The purpose of understanding what ecosystems do from an urban design perspective
is to measure past, current, and future environmental performance of the built environ-
ment in terms of the provision of ecosystem services so that future spatial and temporal
ecology-derived performance goals can be devised [9]. In urban environments themselves,
ecosystem services are less well understood [37], but are thought to occur at low rates
except for cultural ecosystem services [38]. Despite this, several important urban ecosys-
tem services have been identified and include: air purification, water flow regulation,
micro-climate regulation, and carbon sequestration [37]. Typically, these urban ecosystem
services come from urban “green spaces” such as forests and parks, or “blue spaces” such
as lakes and wetlands and represent important opportunities for novel design interven-
tions, particularly related to increasing resilience to climate change [39,40] along with
increasing human wellbeing [41]. Opportunities also exist for green or grey/green hybrid
infrastructure and for buildings themselves to produce ecosystem services [9,42,43]. One
way to reduce or to reverse the negative impact urban environments have on ecosystems
may be to create or re-design urban areas so that they more effectively produce ecosystem
services, and therefore reduce pressure on both local and distant ecosystems. Such a
strategy works towards several of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals
devised in 2015 [44]. Healthier ecosystems more readily provide ecosystem services to
humans that cannot be provided by the built environment itself and can enable humans to
better adapt to the impacts of climate change [45,46]. This is critical as cities continue to
expand and as the climate continues to change [47]. Mimicking what ecosystems do can
become the overall ecological performance goal generator for a development, while the
specific methods or technologies to achieve the goals can be drawn from a wide range of
existing design techniques and tools.
Just as ecosystems and therefore ecosystem services exist at or across different scales,
and are impacted by interventions at different scales, built environment design can be
thought of in different nested scales, each with corresponding (and at times overlapping)
sets of strategies, techniques, and technologies for influencing ecosystem services. For
example, the architectural scale refers to a single building or smaller interventions, the
neighbourhood scale is several buildings and the spaces around them, the urban scale is
a larger part of a city or the whole city itself, and the regional scale includes urban areas
as well as surrounding hinterlands or natural habitat. Scale is undoubtedly an important
part of the equation of the relationships between built environment and ecosystem services
and should be considered at all design stages. In a similar manner, there is a temporal
aspect to design approaches utilising ecosystem services. Timescales, along with the ability
of systems to grow and evolve over time, must be incorporated into early stages of de-
sign thinking and project development. Understanding relationships between ecosystem
services is also important to support the practical application of architectural and urban
related ecosystem services design methodologies in [14]. Until Lee and Lautenbach’s [15]
work, it was difficult to find ecological literature that defined relationships between ecosys-
tem services (particularly cultural ones) and thus made the concept of applying ecosystem
services to a design context less effective and certainly more difficult [1,48]. What is still
needed to progress design for urban ecosystem services is graphical illustrations of rela-
tionships between urban-focused ecosystem services so that the information is easily and
Biomimetics 2021, 6, 2 4 of 16

quickly understood by designers and related professionals. The production of Figure 1

aims to address this issue.

Figure 1. Diagrams of the relationships between ecosystem services (source: [9]).

1.3. Producing Urban Ecosystem Services: Design Approaches

An incremental process that focuses on improving the provision of ecosystem services
(not necessarily the original ecosystem itself) to optimal or pre-existing levels in a specific
place is a quantifiable starting point in the process of regenerating ecosystem services in
the urban built environment. The next stage would be to initiate measures to reintroduce
ecosystem services that may be absent in urban areas due to past degradation and removal
of ecosystems, or because of conventional ways of constructing buildings or urban envi-
ronments. This suggests that an urban built environment able to produce more ecosystem
Biomimetics 2021, 6, 2 5 of 16

services will need to evolve over time rather than be expected to be fully functional after
the initial realisation of a design.
While beyond the scope of this paper, understanding, exploring, and employing the
parameters and indictors used to measure existing or potential ecosystem services are
key to any ecosystem service-based design methodology (see: [9]). Several other combi-
nations of urban parameters may also be useful, particularly when seeking to measure
cultural ecosystem services, for example walkability factors [49] or designing for a sense of
security [50].
Urban ecological performance targets should be ecologically and culturally specific to
a particular site, locality, or region. Systemic approaches that are appropriate to specific
places will also vary. This means that the design for urban ecosystem services is highly
site-specific. Despite each locality needing to evolve its own unique ecosystem service
integration and provision system, knowledge of how to create or begin such systems can be
transferred [51]. Designing for increased urban ecosystem services requires design teams to
consider which ecosystem services are important or suitable for a particular site before any
design of buildings or urban areas begins. Discussions with local peoples and/or ecologists
who have knowledge of local ecosystems may further define the hierarchy of importance
of the ecosystem services for a specific site and identify an appropriate ecological focus.
The following sections outline several methods for developing ecosystem services for
architectural and urban design. Several strategies for incorporating ecosystem services into
built environment exist as described in the following sections.

1.3.1. Ecosystem Services Analysis and Pre-Development Ecological Baselines

Ecosystems services analysis (ESA) is a means by which the concept of ecosystem ser-
vices is specifically applied to existing spatial ecological–social contexts (particularly cities).
ESA investigates measurable levels of a broader range of ecosystem service provisions that
occurred on a particular site when it was an undisturbed ecosystem, and then compares
these to the current provision of ecosystem services on the same site (typically now urban)
to determine goals for sustainable development that are based on a site’s climatic and
ecological reality. This methodology can work at architectural through to urban scales.
This methodology is explained in depth by Pedersen Zari [9]. Case studies of three existing
cities are provided. The same publication expands upon the details of the ESA process and
provides tables of ecological indicators and calculation processes.
Pre-development ecological history analysis was used by the team devising the pro-
posed Lloyd Crossing project for Portland, Oregon. The site’s predevelopment ecosystem
functioning was investigated in terms of rainfall, carbon balance, solar energy fixation and
habitat type and coverage to determine the ecological performance goals of the project over
long time periods [52].
In a similar way, Biomimicry 3.8 (a world leading bio-inspired consultancy offering
biological intelligence consulting, and professional training [10]) have developed “Ecologi-
cal Performance Standards” (EPS) in recent years, which involve investigating an intact
ecosystem on or near to a site to quantify ecosystem services, and then derive aspirational
performance goals for design based on these [10].

1.3.2. Analogous Ecosystem Methods

The Urban Greenprint project for Seattle, which has grown out of the work of
Biomimicry Puget Sound [12], examines the functions of the forest that existed on the
site before development. These were studied to determine how buildings and urban spaces
on the same site could potentially restore the functions of the predevelopment ecosys-
tems [53]. HOK and Biomimicry 3.80 s Lavasa town development project in India also
started from the basis of understanding how the ecosystem on the site had functioned in
order to determine development goals [11,54]. In both cases, design ideas were determined
by examining organism relationships in existing nearby ecosystems, rather than ecosystem
services explicitly.
Biomimetics 2021, 6, 2 6 of 16

1.3.3. Interactive Procedural Modelling for Urban Ecosystem Services

Grêt-Regamey et al. [1] described an interactive three-dimensional geographic infor-
mation system (GIS) based procedural modelling urban design tool with sliding rulers to
assist in making ecosystem service trade-offs visually explicit in relation to different urban
design scenarios. Their method was tested on a small area of Masdar City in Abu Dhabi and
looks at relationships between the ecosystem services of micro-climate regulation, habitat
provision, and landscape aesthetics. Results indicate that if relevant spatial variables can
be determined, the model could be expanded to incorporate other ecosystem services.

1.3.4. Ecosystem Services Apps and Programmes

Several apps and computer programmes have been developed to enable designers to
understand and visualise ecosystem services on specific sites as a basis for design [55,56].
Examples include: Land Utilisation Capability Indicator (LUCI), Artificial Intelligence for
Ecosystem Services (ARIES), Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs
(InVEST), Ecosystem Services Identification and Inventory (ESII), and Co$ting Nature.
These tools range from complex computer programmes that quantify several ecosystem
services over large areas and require a lot of base information and skill to execute (such
as LUCI) to more basic apps that can be used on site with limited generic background
data to provide approximate quantification and spatial mapping of ecosystem services on
site (such as ESII Tool). Usability and outputs of these tools vary greatly, particularly in
relation to urban sites, visualisation of data, and suitability of use by designers. Delpy and
Pedersen Zari [57] investigated the effectiveness of these tools in different urban contexts.

2. Materials and Methods

This research is design-led, rather than a more traditional science-based set of quantifi-
able experiments. Due to this, this methodology section outlines the steps in the research
process and concurrently discusses the reasoning behind each step and how these relate to
the research aims, rather than separating these into discrete sections. The methodology
used to produce the ecosystem relationship diagrams can be understood as follows:

2.1. Step One: Defining Ecosystem Services

A comparative literature-based examination of ecosystem services was conducted in
order to define a list of known ecosystem services that relate to an urban context. This
research was conducted by the author and is reported on in detail in earlier publications.
A summary of this work can be found in [9]. Pedersen Zari [9] provides methodological
details regarding the creation of Table 1. The benefit of presenting ecosystem services
in a simplified format is that it becomes an easily usable set of generalised ecosystem
services that provides an overview for designers with limited background knowledge in
ecology. Such a table is of less value to ecologists, where nuances and precise definitions of
ecological functions are crucial.

2.2. Step Two: Examining Known Relationships between Ecosystem Services

A literature-based review of known ecosystem services associations was conducted.
The data used to produce Figure 1 are based on the research of Lee and Lautenbach [15],
where 67 field-based case studies reporting on 476 combinations of ecosystem service
pairings in the field of ecology were examined and categorised. Further qualifying eco-
logical and socio-economical associations between ecosystem services were provided by
Mouchet et al. [58], Howe et al. [59], Bennett et al. [14], and Raudsepp-Hearne et al. [60].
These identified relationships between ecosystem services were then examined to form
a series of relationship categories. Haase et al.’s [61] synergy and trade-off matrix was
used to understand different types of relationships between ecosystem services including
synergistic ones where increased provision of one ecosystem service can result in increased
provision of another if managed appropriately, through to trade-off relationships where
the provision of one ecosystem service tends to result in the degradation of another.
Biomimetics 2021, 6, 2 7 of 16

Table 1. Ecosystem services with reference to an urban context (source: [9]).

1. Provisioning Services (P) 2. Regulating Services (R) 3. Supporting Services (S) 4. Cultural Services (C)
P1 Food S1 Species maintenance
-Human (land/fresh R1 Pollination and seed -Biodiversity
water/marine) dispersal -Natural selection
-Forage R2 Biological control -Self organisation
P2 Biochemicals -Pest/disease regulation S2 Habitat provision
-Medicines -Invasive species resistance -Habitat for organisms
-Other R3 Climate regulation -Reproduction and nursery
C1 Education and knowledge
P3 Raw materials -GHG regulation habitat
C2 Aesthetic value and artistic
-Timber -UV protection S3 Nutrient cycling
inspiration
-Fibre -Moderation of temperature -Regulation of biogeochemical
C3 Recreation, relaxation and
-Stone -Moderation of noise cycles
psychological wellbeing
-Minerals/ores R4 Prevention of disturbance -Retention of nutrients
C4 Spiritual inspiration
P4 Fuel/energy and moderation of extremes S4 Fixation of solar energy
C5 Creation of a sense of place
-Biomass -Wind/wave/runoff -Primary production/plant
and relationship
-Solar modification growth
-Cultural diversity and history
-Hydro -Mitigation of (above ground, below ground,
-Other flood/drought/erosion marine, fresh water)
P5 Fresh water R5 Decomposition S5 Soil building
-Consumption -Waste removal -Formation
-Irrigation R6 Purification -Retention
-Industrial processes -Water/air/soil -Renewal of fertility
P6 Genetic information -Quality control

2.3. Step Three: Illustrating Relationships between Ecosystem Services

A design-led research (in this case, graphical analysis) process involving the con-
solidation and exploration of the results of steps one and two was followed to produce
a series of diagrams that illustrate relationships between ecosystem services for a de-
sign/architectural/landscape architecture/urban design audience. Diagrams were pro-
duced through an iterative design research process. This process culminated in the produc-
tion of Figure 1.

3. Results: Illustrating Relationships between Ecosystem Services for a

Design Context
Table 1 presents the results of a comparative review and summary of different ways
ecosystem services are discussed in literature (step one of the research methodology).
Pedersen Zari [9] provides brief descriptions of what each ecosystem service is in relation
to the built environment and which ecosystem services are most suitable for focusing on in
an urban design context.
Table 2 shows that new technologies or design methods are not necessarily needed to
implement increased ecosystem service provisions in the built environment, and that most
of the case studies rely on proven existing technologies or strategies [15]. Rather, there is
a need to reconsider the built environment’s overall purpose, and how its performance
is evaluated. Emulating what ecosystems do enables design teams to know what the
quantifiable ecological goals should be for a development in a specific given location and
climate if it is to integrate with existing ecosystems and contribute to their health rather
than deplete them. Emulating, rather than just measuring, ecosystem services in urban
areas suggests a design strategy based on a systematic transfer of scientific ecological
knowledge into a built environment context, rather than design based on simple analogies
of ecosystems [62]. In order to know what ecosystems do, it is important to understand
and illustrate how ecosystem services are related.
Biomimetics 2021, 6, 2 8 of 16

Table 2. Provision of urban ecosystem services with precedents.

Selection of Design Strategies/Technologies to Increase

Scale * Precedents
Ecosystem Services

• Food growing on public and private land.

bio-chemicals (P1, P2)
Provision of food &

• Development of near-by peri-urban food N, U

production belts. U, R Nest We Grow, Hokkaido, Japan, 2014.
• Plant based diets. - College of Environmental Design UC
• Increased yield renewable food growing A-R Berkeley &. Kengo Kuma & Associates
techniques. A [63].
• Roof top/façade/interior/vertical food growing. R
• Reduced export of food.
Provisioning ServicesProvisioning Services

Raw materials

• Urban agroforestry.
• Intensive green rooftops. U
Chartwell School, Seaside (CA), USA.
A
(P3)

• Industrial ecology; design for 2007. EHDD Architecture & Taylor

deconstruction/recycling. A, N, U
Engineering [64].
• Landfill mining. U, R
Energy/Fuel (P4)

• Energy efficiency (behaviour and technologies).

• Passive solar. A
• Substitution of fossil fuel sources by renewable A Bullitt Centre, Seattle, USA, 2013. Miller
ones. A-R Hull [65].
• Building integrated renewable electricity A
generation.

• Reduction of water demand (behaviour and

efficiency).
• Recycling and treating water on-site.
Fresh water (P5)

A-R
• Returning clean waste water to original source if A, N
possible. A-R Te Kura Whare for Tūhoe, Tāneatua, New
• Rain water harvesting; community rain water tanks; A-R Zealand, 2014. Jasmax [66].
collection/production of ‘alternative’ water sources. A-U
• Water sensitive urban design; green infrastructure. U, R
• Forest and wetland capture, storage and filtration
of water.
Pollination (R1)

• Increased urban vegetation: green roofs; living

walls; urban agriculture; urban forests etc. A, N, U
• Planting for increased biodiversity. A-R Pollinator Pathway Project, Seattle, USA.
• Built habitat analogues. A, N 2014. S. Bergmann [67].
N, U
Regulating Services

• Pollinator pathways.
Climate regulation (R3)

• Carbon sequestration/storage materials and

technologies.
• Regeneration of protected forest. A, N, U
• Increased urban vegetation (increased U, R Aldo Leopold Legacy Center, Baraboo
evapotranspiration, shading, and wind buffering). U, R (WI), USA. 2007. Kubala Washatko
• Ecosystem-based adaptation/nature-based solution A-R Architects [68].
strategies. N, U
• Reduced use of fossil fuels through urban planning.
Biomimetics 2021, 6, 2 9 of 16

Table 2. Cont.

Selection of Design Strategies/Technologies to Increase

Scale * Precedents
Ecosystem Services

• Ecosystem-based adaptation; nature-based

disturbance (R4)

solutions.
Prevention of

• Grey/green hybrid construction/infrastructure to A-R

Chulalongkorn University Centennial
mitigate flooding and wave/wind damage; U, R
Park, Bangkok, Thailand. 2017. by K.
stabilise slopes. U
Voraakhom [69].
• Urban forest. U, R
• Wetlands.

• Cessation of pollution of water

ways/harbours/aquifers through treatment of
storm/grey/black water, and leachates.
• Cessation of air and soil pollution.
• Urban forest regeneration and management U
Purification (R6)

strategies. N, U
Manuel Gea Gonzales Hospital, Mexico
• Phyto-remediation/bio-remediation; Living U
City, Mexico. 2014. Elegant
Machines; green roofs and facades; green A, N
Embellishments, Joshua Socolar, WiLaufs
infrastructure; wetlands. A, N
& Buro Happold [70].
• Appropriate mechanical plant (air purification / A
filtration). N, U
• Pollution remediating/absorbing building
materials.
• Water sensitive urban design; increased porosity.

• Preservation of existing forest and vegetation.

(S1, S2, S4, S5, R2, P6)
Habitat provision

• Careful planning for urbanisation to avoid habitat U, R

loss. U, R
• Provision of measures to counter fragmentation of U, R The Paddock, Castlemaine, Australia. Hes
habitat. N, U and Biourbem [71].
• Revegetation of green space to provide habitat.
Supporting Services

A, N
• Habitat provision on or in buildings. N, U, R
• Hybrid grey/green infrastructure strategies.
decomposition (S3, R5)
Nutrient cycling and

• Elimination of wastes; separation of waste streams. U, R

• Cessation of landfilling; landfill mining. U, R
• Cessation of emission of sewage to ocean. R
• Deconstruction and reuse of materials. ReGen Villages (concept). EFFEKT
A
• Increased use of local or nearby materials. Architects [72].
A, N
• Industrial ecology; ‘Cradle-to-Cradle’ design. A-U
• Composting and biodegradation. A-U

* Scales: architectural (A), neighbourhood (N), urban (U), regional (R).

Figure 1 has been prepared as a result of steps 2 and 3 of this research process (see
Sections 2.2 and 2.3). Figure 1 illustrates known synergistic and trade-off relationships
between ecosystem services. Where associations are still undecided, have no known effect,
or where there is not enough evidence according to ecological literature, associations are not
shown. The relationship diagram of ecosystem services (Figure 1) shows that provisioning
services are dependent on both regulating and supporting services but supporting or
regulating services tends not to be dependent on provisioning services. Due to this, it is
important that any ecosystem service-based design methodology or evaluation technique
does not ignore regulating or supporting services, although these are more difficult to
measure and quantify, and tend to be less well understood by people and therefore perhaps
valued [60]. The provision of food for example is the provisioning service that appears
Biomimetics 2021, 6, 2 10 of 16

to have the most trade-off associations with other ecosystem services (Figure 1). As the
ecosystem service of provision of food is fundamental to the continuation of the human
species, this reiterates the importance of considering individual ecosystem services in
the context of their relationships to others rather than just in isolation. It is physically
impossible, or at least very short sighted, to, for example, work towards higher levels of
urban food production without also considering climate regulation, soil building, and
provision of fresh water at the same time.
This means that design strategies to increase urban ecosystem services should ensure
that technologies and systems integrated into a building or wider development are appro-
priate in terms of overall environmental life cycle impact on multiple ecosystem services.
For example, increasing the provision of metals through mining (and thereby increasing the
ecosystem service of provision of raw materials) due to some metal’s ability to be recycled
many times (and thus engaging more effectively with the ecosystem service of nutrient
cycling) could be deemed inappropriate in urban ecosystem service-focused design, given
the negative impacts increased mining could have on the ecosystem services of habitat
provision and climate regulation as illustrated in Figure 1.

4. Discussion: Understanding Relationships between Ecosystem Services for a

Design Context
Many examinations of how ecosystems function, or what the services they provide
are, result in lists or matrices of unrelated services (see Table 1). Lists are useful in the
preliminary stages of design if design teams are unfamiliar with ecosystem services but
showing where services are potentially linked (see Figure 1) gives designers insights into
how to design buildings, spatial environments, or urban settings to provide or support
multiple ecosystem services that potentially positively reinforce each other [73]. Figure 1
also illustrates that when affecting one ecosystem service others need to be considered, so
that when improving one, another is not degraded, as is often the case in urban design [1].
For example, increasing the carbon sequestration potential of an area can impact negatively
on biodiversity (species maintenance) if both services are not considered in tandem. This
could happen for example if trees are planted in an attempt to sequester carbon without an
understanding of the tree species necessary in that area to provide habitat for local wildlife.
As the understanding of relationships between ecosystem services and human well-
being develops, and different values (economic or otherwise) are assigned to different
ecosystem services, the relationship diagrams (Figure 1) will need to be refined. De-
termining the exact levels of causation and representing additional complexities of the
relationships would complicate the diagram’s potential as a design tool. Causal patterns
are described as being complex, rarely linear and an important part of future ecology
research and are needed to progress the understanding of ecosystem services [14,26]. While
the relationship diagrams in Figure 1 do not illustrate the complex variety of potential
feedbacks and relationships across scales or over time, they do reflect more accurately the
physical reality of ecosystem services operating in a dynamic changing context than the
simple list presented in Table 1. The development of Figure 1, as results from the field
of ecology are made available, should include attempting to illustrate the likely magni-
tude (both spatial and temporal scales) and reversibility of the synergistic and trade-off
relationships as defined by Rodríguez et al. [74].
Indicating where important or obvious relationships exist is useful in a design context
because it guides professionals to begin to design interconnected systems rather than to
focus on single-issue design goals such as the development of buildings or sites that are
just zero waste, carbon neutral, or water positive etc. Such design aims are worthwhile
and difficult to achieve, but the point being made is that single focus ecological goals can
actually create damage to other ecosystem services if related issues are not understood or
considered in tandem [1,17]. The relationship lines in Figure 1 indicate which additional
ecosystem services designers or policy makers need to investigate when planning to
provide or integrate with a specific ecosystem service. This is crucial both to prevent
accidental damage to other ecosystem services through human development where a trade-
Biomimetics 2021, 6, 2 11 of 16

off relationship is identified, but also to harness strategies for synergistic relationships
between ecosystem services.
Relationship lines between ecosystem services indicated in Figure 1 may also provide
pathways to investigate whether certain designs could provide “bundles” of related ser-
vices. For example, if a design goal for an urban development was to maintain or regenerate
climate regulation services, and relationships between ecosystem services are understood
and leveraged, the provisioning ecosystem service of energy provision would have to
be considered, and the cultural ecosystem service of a sense of place could be enhanced.
Careful planning would be needed to ensure no conflicts or reductions in provision of
food, raw materials, and habitat ecosystem services. These relationships are illustrated
in Figure 2, which demonstrates that just one ecosystem service (climate regulation) is
closely related with at least five others. When considering each ecosystem service to which
these five are connected, most of the other ecosystem services quickly become additional
important considerations. This again highlights the importance of having a holistic and
broad approach to designing with or emulating ecosystem services.

Figure 2. Connections between climate regulation and other ecosystem services. (source: [9]).

When designers combine knowledge of synergetic and trade-off relationships be-

tween ecosystem services with specific strategies for increasing certain ecosystem ser-
vices as detailed in Table 2, strategic decisions can be made about what design poten-
tials/technologies/strategies to explore. For example, returning to the case of climate
regulation (Figure 2), a design team working at the architectural (single building) scale may
decide to investigate the use of carbon sequestering and/or storing materials for the basic
structure, combined with the use of extensive building integrated vegetation to modify
local climate and sequester further carbon. By referring to Figure 2, the design team would
Biomimetics 2021, 6, 2 12 of 16

understand that increasing vegetation in, on, or around a building could serve to not only
increase climate regulation ecosystem services (by storing and sequestering carbon), but
could also result in a synergistic or “win-win” situation relative to providing multiple
ecosystem services with single design interventions, if vegetation is selected not just on car-
bon sequestration rates, but also relative to habitat provision or food production potentials.
Understanding which ecosystem services are related and in which ways helps designers
evolve more effective and integrated projects. When combined with a consideration of
spatial and temporal scale interactions and impacts, this becomes even more acute.

5. Benefits and Challenges of Ecosystem Services Design

Aside from general ecological benefits of built environments that go beyond sustain-
ability and seek to actually create ecological and human health (termed here “ecologically
regenerative built environments”), there are significant social and economic benefits such
as more resilient communities as the climate continues to change, more equitable com-
munities, potential new revenue streams from buildings, and increased financial value of
buildings [75]. Elaboration upon these benefits will not be repeated here, but several addi-
tional advantages arise when considering ecosystem services and relationships between
them in a sustainable or ecologically regenerative design process. Benefits of incorporat-
ing an understanding of ecosystem services into architectural and urban design include
increased human health, and increased biodiversity in urban areas [76]. Using ecosystem
service research methods to devise design goals enables the success or failure of devel-
opments to be gauged from a perspective of site-specific ecological reality. The provision
of ecosystem services (past, current and ideal future) can be mapped spatially [17,56,77],
and tangible ecological benchmarks for a specific site can be devised over different time
periods, lending itself to long term staged urban planning.
When the benefits derived from local ecosystems are understood or become apparent,
these are valued more and perhaps therefore preserved [78]. For example, understanding
that purer water is a result of nearby forests in a particular city could mean it is easier to
convince people of the need to conserve the forest for that purpose (and other ecosystem
services) rather than to see and use it as simply a source of timber. This change in thinking
has the potential to contribute to prioritising or preventing certain urban development
projects in particular areas, and therefore to contribute to effective spatial planning and
selection of materials [79]. In addition, by considering impacts on ecosystem services, the
implications of urban design and planning decision making can be understood across vari-
ous spatial boundaries, time scales, and multiple interconnected environmental issues, and
can therefore be communicated to citizens, clients, city managers, and other stakeholders.
This means more accurate planning and budgeting and perhaps a reduction in a city’s
overall ecological footprint.
Several challenges remain before ecosystem services can be more easily and thor-
oughly integrated into built environment design including ecologists reaching consensus
about ecosystem services’ definitions, boundaries, metrics, and hierarchies; defining indi-
cators and benchmarks for measuring the capacity of ecosystems to provide services or
recover from damage over time; integrating spatial and temporal issues of both ecosystem
services and built environment design as they exist interdependently; exploring how to
spatialise, map, model, and visualise ecosystem services in relation to urban environments;
categorising existing strategies and methods for producing or integrating ecosystem ser-
vices in built environment design, and integrating social concerns into ecosystem service
methods [16,80–82]. It is vital to address these research gaps in order to facilitate the learn-
ing and sharing of the concepts, and to enable comparisons to be made between different
decisions that have been made. In spite of these challenges and gaps in knowledge, the
research described in this article provides a basis for further exploration, experimentation
and application of ecosystem service design to urban design situations.
Biomimetics 2021, 6, 2 13 of 16

6. Conclusions
Cities must become key players in global efforts to conserve and restore biological
ecosystems and ecosystem services derived from them, but cities should also begin to
produce ecosystem services in higher quantities through the medium of architecture and/or
urban blue and green space. If the goal of architecture and urban design is to create
or retrofit cities so that they support the wellbeing of people and society, the support
and regeneration of urban ecosystem services must be integrated into design decisions
and interventions. This may help to reframe the essential human–nature relationship
and may be of use to designers or policy makers working to create highly sustainable
or even potentially regenerative urban areas. In order to progress this agenda, urban
design concepts and methods that enable cities to produce ecosystem services in greater
volumes are needed. To make these methodologies more effective, an understanding of
how ecosystem services are related is vital.
The concept of ecosystem services is increasingly being applied to many fields of
human endeavour, and if extended to architectural and urban design, the potential for
profound change in how built environments are designed, valued, built and used is
apparent. This is not just related to reducing environmental impacts but also could be
part of bringing ecological knowledge into built environment design so that evolving built
environments actually begin to contribute positively to ecosystems and produce ecosystem
services. The change needed will not necessarily come through devising new technologies,
but by the adoption of new mind-sets and goals for how built environments can and
should function. Integrating the provision of ecosystem services into architectural and
urban design could provide such goals and targets grounded in the physical ecological
reality of the planet.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Grêt-Regamey, A.; Celio, E.; Klein, T.M.; Hayek, U.W. Understanding ecosystem services trade-offs with interactive procedural
modeling for sustainable urban planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 109, 107–116. [CrossRef]
2. Van Vliet, J.; Eitelberg, D.A.; Verburg, P.H. A global analysis of land take in cropland areas and production displacement from
urbanization. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 43, 107–115. [CrossRef]
3. Ruth, M.; Coelho, D. Understanding and managing the complexity of urban systems under climate change. Clim. Policy 2007,
7, 317–336. [CrossRef]
4. Doughty, M.; Hammond, G. Sustainability and the Built Environment at and Beyond the City Scale. Build. Environ. 2004,
39, 1223–1233. [CrossRef]
5. Vitousek, P.M.; Mooney, H.A.; Lubchenco, J.; Melillo, J.M. Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems. Science 1997, 277, 494–499.
[CrossRef]
6. Shach-Pinsly, D.; Capeluto, I.G. From Form-Based to Performance-Based Codes. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5657. [CrossRef]
7. Carmona, M.; Sieh, L. Measuring Quality in Planning: Managing the Performance Process; Spon Press: Oxon, UK, 2004.
8. Hayes, S.; Desha, C.; Baumeister, D. Learning from nature—Biomimicry innovation to support infrastructure sustainability and
resilience. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 161, 120287. [CrossRef]
9. Pedersen Zari, M. Regenerative Urban Design and Ecosystem Biomimicry; Routledge: Oxon, UK, 2018.
10. Baumeister, D.; Pedersen Zari, M.; Hayes, S. Biomimicry: An Opportunity for Buildings to Relate to Place. In Ecologies Design:
Transforming Architecture, Landscape, and Urbanism; Pedersen Zari, M., Connolly, P., Southcombe, M., Eds.; Routledge: Oxon, UK,
2020; pp. 85–95.
11. Hayes, S.; Desha, C.; Gibbs, M.T. Findings of Case-Study Analysis: System-Level Biomimicry in Built-Environment Design.
Biomimetics 2019, 4, 73. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Buck, N.T. The art of imitating life: The potential contribution of biomimicry in shaping the future of our cities. Environ. Plan. B
Urban Anal. City Sci. 2017, 44, 120–140. [CrossRef]
13. Yeang, K. Ecological Design as the Biointegration of a Set of ‘Infrastructures’: The ‘Quatrobrid’ Constructed Ecosystem. In
Ecologies Design: Transforming Architecture, Landscape, and Urbanism; Pedersen Zari, M., Connolly, P., Southcombe, M., Eds.;
Routledge: Oxon, UK, 2020; pp. 44–48.
14. Bennett, E.M.; Peterson, G.D.; Gordon, L.J. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol. Lett. 2009,
12, 1394–1404. [CrossRef]
Biomimetics 2021, 6, 2 14 of 16

15. Lee, H.; Lautenbach, S. A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 66, 340–351.
[CrossRef]
16. Pedersen Zari, M.; Hecht, K. Biomimicry for regenerative built environments: Mapping design strategies for producing ecosystem
services. Biomimetics 2020, 5, 18. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Hansen, R.; Pauleit, S. From Multifunctionality to Multiple Ecosystem Services? A Conceptual Framework for Multifunctionality
in Green Infrastructure Planning for Urban Areas. AMBIO 2014, 43, 516–529. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Daily, G.C.; Soderqvist, T.; Aniyar, S.; Arrow, K.; Dasgupta, P.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Folke, C.; Jansson, A.; Jansson, B.; Kautsky, N.; et al.
The Value of Nature and the Nature of Value. Science 2000, 289, 395–396. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. De Groot, R.; Wilson, M.A.; Boumans, R.M.J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem function,
goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 393–408. [CrossRef]
20. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends; Island Press: Washington DC,
USA, 2005.
21. Potschin, M.; Haines-Young, R.; Fish, R.; Turner, K. Ecosystem Services in the Twenty-First Century. In Routledge Handbook of
Ecosystem Services; Routledge: London, UK, 2016.
22. Martín-López, B.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; García-Llorente, M.; Montes, C. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services
assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 37, 220–228. [CrossRef]
23. Costanza, R.; Folke, C. Valuing Ecosystem Services with Efficiency, Fairness, and Sustainability as Goals. In Nature Services; Daily,
G., Ed.; Island Press: Washington DC, USA, 1997.
24. Jax, K.; Barton, D.N.; Chan, K.M.A.; De Groot, R.; Doyle, U.; Eser, U.; Görg, C.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Griewald, Y.; Haber, W.;
et al. Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 93, 260–268. [CrossRef]
25. Turner, G. A Comparison of the Limits to Growth with Thirty Years of Reality; CSIRO: Canberra, Australia, 2008.
26. Carpenter, S.R.; Mooney, H.A.; Agard, J.; Capistrano, D.; DeFries, R.S.; Diaz, S.; Whyte, A. Science for managing ecosystem
services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 1305–1312. [CrossRef]
27. Norberg, J. Linking Nature’s services to ecosystems: Some general ecological concepts. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 29, 183–202. [CrossRef]
28. Aerts, R.; Honnay, O.; Van Nieuwenhuyse, A. Biodiversity and human health: Mechanisms and evidence of the positive health
effects of diversity in nature and green spaces. Br. Med Bull. 2018, 127, 5–22. [CrossRef]
29. Kilpatrick, A.M.; Salkeld, D.J.; Titcomb, G.; Hahn, M.B. Conservation of biodiversity as a strategy for improving human health
and well-being. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2017, 372. [CrossRef]
30. Blaschke, P.; Chapman, R.; Gyde, E.; Howden-Chapman, P.; Ombler, J.; Pedersen Zari, M.; Perry, M.; Randal, E. Green Space in
Wellington’s Central City: Current Provision, and Design for Future Wellbeing; A Report for Wellington City Council; New Zealand
Centre for Sustainable Cities: Wellington, New Zealand, 2019.
31. Beatley, T. The Emergence of Biophilic Design and Planning: Re-Envisioning Cities and City Life. In Ecologies Design: Transforming
Architecture, Landscape, and Urbanism; Pedersen Zari, M., Connolly, P., Southcombe, M., Eds.; Routledge: Oxon, UK, 2020;
pp. 96–105.
32. Frumkin, H.; Bratman, G.N.; Breslow, S.J.; Cochran, B.; Kahn, P.H., Jr.; Lawler, J.J.; Wood, S.A. Nature Contact and Human Health:
A Research Agenda. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017, 125, 075001. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Botzat, A.; Fischer, L.K.; Kowarik, I. Unexploited opportunities in understanding liveable and biodiverse cities. A review on
urban biodiversity perception and valuation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 39, 220–233. [CrossRef]
34. Vierikko, K.; Elands, B.; Niemelä, J.; Andersson, E.; Buijs, A.; Fischer, L.K.; Haase, D.; Kabisch, N.; Kowarik, I.; Luz, A.C.; et al.
Considering the ways biocultural diversity helps enforce the urban green infrastructure in times of urban transformation. Curr.
Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2016, 22, 7–12. [CrossRef]
35. Elmqvist, T.; Setälä, H.; Handel, S.N.; van der Ploeg, S.; Aronson, J.; Blignaut, J.N.; de Groot, R. Benefits of restoring ecosystem
services in urban areas. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 101–108. [CrossRef]
36. Walsh, J.R.; Carpenter, S.R.; Vander Zanden, M.J. Invasive species triggers a massive loss of ecosystem services through a trophic
cascade. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 4081–4085. [CrossRef]
37. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Barton, D.N. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86, 235–245.
[CrossRef]
38. Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; Van Der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the
global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 26, 152–158. [CrossRef]
39. Elmqvist, T.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Langemeyer, J. Ecosystem Services Provided by Urban Green Infrastructure. In Routledge
Handbook of Ecosystem Services; Routledge: London, UK, 2016.
40. Pedersen Zari, M.; Kiddle, G.L.; Blaschke, P.; Gawler, S.; Loubser, D. Utilising nature-based solutions to increase resilience in
Pacific Ocean Cities. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 38, 1–10. [CrossRef]
41. Foley, R.; Kistemann, T. Blue space geographies: Enabling health in place. Health Place 2015, 35, 157–165. [CrossRef]
42. Escobedo, F.J.; Giannico, V.; Jim, C.Y.; Sanesi, G.; Lafortezza, R. Urban forests, ecosystem services, green infrastructure and
nature-based solutions: Nexus or evolving metaphors? Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 37, 3–12. [CrossRef]
43. Birkeland, J. Positive Development: From Vicious Circles to Virtuous Cycles; Earthscan: London, UK, 2008.
44. United Nations General Assembly. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New
York, NY, USA, 2015.
Biomimetics 2021, 6, 2 15 of 16

45. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). Ocean Cities Regional Policy Guide; UNESCAP:
Bangkok, Thailand, 2019.
46. Pedersen Zari, M. Biomimetic design for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Arch. Sci. Rev. 2010, 53, 172–183. [CrossRef]
47. Mckinney, M.L. Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation. Bioscience 2002, 52, 883–890. [CrossRef]
48. Daniel, T.C.; Muhar, A.; Arnberger, A.; Aznar, O.; Boyd, J.W.; Chan, K.M.A.; von der Dunk, A. Contributions of cultural services
to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 8812–8819. [CrossRef]
49. Ellis, G.; Hunter, R.; Tully, M.A.; Donnelly, M.; Kelleher, L.; Kee, F. Connectivity and physical activity: Using footpath networks to
measure the walkability of built environments. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2016, 43, 130–151. [CrossRef]
50. Shach-Pinsly, D. Measuring security in the built environment: Evaluating urban vulnerability in a human-scale urban form.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 191, 103412. [CrossRef]
51. Pedersen Zari, M. Biomimetic Urban Design: Ecosystem Service Provision of Water and Energy. Buildings 2017, 7, 21. [CrossRef]
52. Portland Development Commission. Lloyd Crossing: Sustainable Urban Design Plan and Catalyst Project; Portland Development
Commission: Portland, OR, USA, 2004.
53. Urban Greenprint. Seed Kit: Design Concepts Learned from Pacific Northwest Forests; Urban Greenprint: Seattle, WA, USA, 2017.
54. Rossin, K.J. Biomimicry: Nature’s Design Process Versus the Designer’s Process. Wit Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2010, 138, 559–570.
55. Bagstad, K.J.; Semmens, D.J.; Waage, S.; Winthrop, R. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services
quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 5, 27–39. [CrossRef]
56. Burkhard, B.; Maes, J. Mapping ecosystem services. Adv. Books 2017, 1, e12837.
57. Delpy, F.; Pedersen Zari, M. Ecosystem services assessment tools for regenerative urban design in Oceania. Imaginable Futures:
Design Thinking, and the Scientific Method. In Proceedings of the 54th International Conference of the Architectural Science
Association, Auckland, New Zealand, 26–27 November 2020.
58. Mouchet, M.A.; Lamarque, P.; Martín-López, B.; Crouzat, E.; Gos, P.; Byczek, C.; Lavorel, S. An interdisciplinary methodological
guide for quantifying associations between ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 28, 298–308. [CrossRef]
59. Howe, C.; Suich, H.; Vira, B.; Mace, G.M. Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: A
meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 28, 263–275. [CrossRef]
60. Raudsepp-Hearne, C.; Peterson, G.D.; Bennett, E.M. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 5242. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Haase, D.; Schwarz, N.; Strohbach, M.; Kroll, F.; Seppelt, R. Synergies, trade-offs, and losses of ecosystem services in urban
regions: An integrated multiscale framework applied to the Leipzig-Halle Region, Germany. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 22. [CrossRef]
62. Pedersen Zari, M.; Connolly, P.; Southcombe, M. Ecologies Design: Transforming Architecture, Landscape, and Urbanism, Routledge
Research in Sustainable Urbanism; Routledge: Oxon, UK, 2020.
63. Archdaily. Nest We Grow. 2015. Available online: https://www.archdaily.com/592660/nest-we-grow-college-of-environmental-
design-uc-berkeley-kengo-kuma-and-associates/ (accessed on 1 December 2019).
64. Shell, S.; Gutierrez, O.; Fisher, L. Design for Deconstruction: The Chartwell School Case Study; US Environmental Protection Agency:
Washington DC, USA, 2008.
65. Leah, A. The Bullitt Centre: A ‘Living Building’. In Materials for a Healthy, Ecological and Sustainable Built Environment: Principles
for Evaluation; Petrović, E.K., Vale, B., Pedersen Zari, M., Eds.; Routledge: Oxon, UK, 2017; pp. 357–371.
66. Partington, J.; Pedersen Zari, M. Ngāi Tūhoe’s Te Kura Whare: Our Living Building. In Ecologies Design: Transforming Architecture,
Landscape, and Urbanism; Pedersen Zari, M., Connolly, P., Southcombe, M., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Duxford, UK, 2020;
pp. 96–105.
67. Cerra, J.F. Emerging strategies for voluntary urban ecological stewardship on private property. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017,
157, 586–597. [CrossRef]
68. Utzinger, D.M.; Bradley, D.E. Integrating energy simulation into the design process of high performance buildings: A case study
of the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center. Building Simulation’09. In Proceedings of the 11th International IBPSA Conference, Glasgow,
Scotland, 27–30 July 2009; pp. 27–30.
69. D’Arcy, P. When Bangkok Floods (and it Floods a Lot), This Park Does Something Amazing. TED Conferences. 2018. Available
online: https://ideas.ted.com/when-bangkok-floods-and-it-floods-a-lot-this-park-does-something-amazing/ (accessed on
1 July 2019).
70. Halilovic, M. Potential of air quality improvements in Sarajevo using innovative architecture approach. Period. Eng. Nat. Sci.
2017, 5. [CrossRef]
71. Hes, D.; Bush, J. Designing for Living Environments Using Regenerative Development: A Case Study of The Paddock. In Ecologies
Design: Transforming Architecture, Landscape, and Urbanism; Pedersen Zari, M., Connolly, P., Southcombe, M., Eds.; Routledge:
Oxon, UK, 2020; pp. 96–105.
72. Maguire, M. Affordable, developer-driven ecovillages: Meeting an unmet need. Communities 2017, 174, 54–57.
73. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. England’s Terrestrial Ecosystem Services and the Rationale for an Ecosystem Approach; DEFRA Overview
Report Project Code NR0107; DEFRA: London, UK, 2008.
74. Rodríguez, J.P.; Beard, T.D., Jr.; Bennett, E.M.; Cumming, G.S.; Cork, S.J.; Agard, J.; Peterson, G.D. Trade-offs across space, time,
and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 1–14. [CrossRef]
Biomimetics 2021, 6, 2 16 of 16

75. Pedersen Zari, M.; Jenkin, S. Value Case for a Sustainable Built Environment–Towards Regenerative Development; Ministry for the
Environment: Wellington, New Zealand, 2008.
76. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management; TEEB:
Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
77. Martínez-Harms, M.J.; Balvanera, P. Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: A review. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv.
Manag. 2012, 8, 17–25. [CrossRef]
78. Brown, B.; Harkness, T.; Johnston, D. Eco-revelatory design: Nature constructed/nature revealed. Landsc. J. 1998, 17, 15–17.
79. Pedersen Zari, M. Utilizing Relationships Between Ecosystem Services, Built Environments, and Building Materials. In Materials
for a Healthy, Ecological and Sustainable Built Environment: Principles for Evaluation; Petrović, E.K., Vale, B., Pedersen Zari, M., Eds.;
Woodhead: Duxford, UK, 2017.
80. Koellner, T.; Geyer, R. Global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
2013, 18, 1185–1187. [CrossRef]
81. De Groot, R.S.; Alkemade, R.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.; Willemen, L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and
values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 260–272. [CrossRef]
82. Zhang, Y.; Singh, S.; Bakshi, B.R. Accounting for Ecosystem Services in Life Cycle Assessment, Part I: A Critical Review. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 2224–2232. [CrossRef] [PubMed]